Ben Fowlkes? Reconciler or feces disturber?

Dana White, Randy Couture and the trouble with being a bad breaker-upper
by Ben Fowlkes on Feb 06, 2013 at 8:30 pm ET

If I knew how to use my computer for anything other than typing and reading and looking at GIFs of knockouts, here's where I'd make a Venn diagram to illustrate a point about the beef between UFC President Dana White and former UFC champion Randy Couture.

One circle would be labeled, "People Who Are Bad, According to Dana White." Another circle would be labeled, "People Who Dana White Is No Longer in Business With." At the risk of running face-first into a drastic understatement, let's just say the overlap would be, uh, considerable.

We knew this was coming as soon as the news broke that Couture was going to work for the UFC's competitors at Bellator and Spike TV. We knew White would have something to say, and we knew it probably wouldn't be complimentary. It was just a matter of pulling the string and waiting to hear which defamatory tirade came out.

The fallout here included White accusing Couture of bailing on his commitment to the UFC's FOX broadcasts, painting him as a liar and a coward and a bad business partner, and saying that while he respected Couture's abilities in the cage, "There's no less of a man when he steps outside of it."

Surprised to hear the UFC boss talk that way about a former two-division champ and company Hall of Famer? Couture wasn't. As he told ESPN.com's Josh Gross recently, "If Dana's anything he's predictable."

Couture's side of the story acknowledges that, yes, he did bail on his FOX commentating deal, but he bailed in a fashion that his contract allowed for. And no, Couture said, he didn't come right out and tell the UFC he had a deal on the table that would take him over to the other side, but that's because he was subject to a non-disclosure agreement.

According to what Couture told Gross, he and his attorney "gave [Zuffa] every opportunity we could to make them understand without disclosing what we couldn't disclose that things were heating up for me, and if they wanted to keep me it was going to take something significant. They passed."

Granted, that's Couture's version. It's likely to be as self-serving as White's, because that's what happens when you ask someone to tell you about how a business relationship went sour. It's not so different from when you ask someone to tell you about their recent breakup. The natural tendency is to minimize your own culpability.

It's just that, there's a difference between offering a version of events that's especially generous to yourself and offering one that makes the other party out to be an irredeemable scumbag. The line between the two is what separates the people who know how to break up well from the people who don't.

White? He doesn't break up so well. In fact, he's among the worst breaker-uppers of all time. Just ask Spike TV, which went from trusted TV partner to "worst channel in the history of the world" almost as soon as its deal with the UFC had expired.

Face it, White is not the type who cordially agrees to "just be friends." He's the type who burns your photos and then slanders you to anyone who will listen.

It's "unfortunate," as Couture put it, "but Dana's Dana."

The fact that White handles these sorts of splits so poorly is probably a natural byproduct of the same ferocious drive that's made him the sport's most successful promoter. It's just weird that someone who's so good at business is also so quick to make it personal. As much as White seems to disdain his own reputation as a hothead, he also supports that characterization with his own version of events. For instance, check out his description of his response when he first got wind that Couture might be considering other offers.

"I start digging around, and I find out that he's talking about doing a deal with Bellator and Spike," White told reporters. "I call his lawyer. I went 'me' on his lawyer is the best way I can explain it. Then I called Randy. I called him over and over and over again. He wouldn't even answer his phone."

Gee, I wonder why. Could it have been because, non-disclosure agreement or not, he didn't feel like having Dana go Dana on him over the phone? If you're essentially acknowledging that you called someone up so you could yell and swear at them, do you still get to act surprised when they don't pick up?

That's not to say that Couture is an unassailable figure in all this. He does have a bit of a reputation for biting the hand that feeds him at times, and his own personal history with the UFC is marked by a waffling sense of loyalty. This is the man who tried to resign his position as UFC champion like it was a job as the manager of an Applebee's, after all. Even in retirement, it seems he wanted that UFC commentating gig only until something better came along.

Then again, is that so wrong, or so different from what happens all the time in business relationships? We know the UFC loves company men like Chuck Liddell, Matt Hughes and Forrest Griffin. Couture doesn't always seem to be that type of team player. He seems more like a guy who's looking out for himself and his own interests first, which you could argue is a pretty good idea for a professional athlete in a business as crazy as cage fighting.

But even if White doesn't like the way Couture does business, can't he dislike it without going all scorched earth on Couture as a person? Can't they agree to just be friends here, even if neither of them really means it? Because, as I think most of us know by now, developing a reputation as someone who breaks up badly doesn't just burn bridges with all your exes. It also tells current and potential future partners that sometimes it's a better idea to let your phone calls go straight to voicemail

I usually find myself completely agreeing with Ben. In fact, I can't recall any of his articles that I found inaccurate or disagreed with.

Not this time. It's not that I think he's playing favorites or completely misrepresenting things, either. I just think the topic and the tone of this article is ill-advised. And while the article gives the appearance of fair and balanced objectivity, I can't say that it is.

I'm not faulting anyone for thinking differently, but a number of comments had me shaking my head as the conclusion Ben gave doesn't automatically follow.

"One circle would be labeled, "People Who Are Bad, According to Dana White." Another circle would be labeled, "People Who Dana White Is No Longer in Business With." At the risk of running face-first into a drastic understatement, let's just say the overlap would be, uh, considerable."

I'm not denying that this statement doesn't fit Dana. It does. It happens to also fit a lot of other people in business, too. People who you think are bad are almost invariably the people you no longer do business with. (With the exception of organized crime figures as it's usually up to them whether you're still in business with them or not. With them, death or state's evidence is usually the only way out. )

"It's just that, there's a difference between offering a version of events that's especially generous to yourself and offering one that makes the other party out to be an irredeemable scumbag. The line between the two is what separates the people who know how to break up well from the people who don't."

This is another comment that gave me a bit of pause.

While it's possible that this is applicable, it's likely that one of them can be a duplictious bleep and the comments are accurate. And I'm not saying either of the two, Couture or White, is one of these.

I suspect that Ben, in attempting to adhere to journalistic integrity, may be trying to give the appearance of giving both sides equal weight and consideration when perhaps one doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. To be absolutely clear, I really don't know the details of the personal and business relationships between the two, so I'm not defending Randy or Dana.

There's more but that's what gave me the feeling that this is more about Ben's feelings about the two than it is the actual interactions between Randy and Dana.

edit; the idea of giving two sides equal time and weight is that both don't always deserve that equality. Take the 'teach the controversy' mantra from creationists in the evolution discussion, for example. One side is demonstrably wrong, relying on pseudo science and theology to demand a place at the scientific table when they're teaching metaphysics, not science. Sometimes, the exclusion or one sidedness is deserved and an automatic equalization elevates one position to a level it shouldn't hold.

I read this article and commented on it. Its complete garbage...just like most of the stuff he puts out. It's biased, and sometimes inaccurate, drivel. Dana White bad, Randy Couture, good is essentially what I got from it.

For example, he points out how Couture did actually f--- the UFC, yet how bad Dana White is at breaking up??? I mean...the guy's honest/emotional, he'll always be honest/emotional. How is it relevant how bad White is at breaking up when a guy that he's helped build his career is f---ing them over and taking his name (because he's not fighting) to spawn a different organization on TV??? And apparently Dana White...the guy who is known to be emotional is just supposed to take it up the *** or something. Like what is the expectation here? The company has been built on Dana White, whether you like his outbursts or not.

Couture's side of the story acknowledges that, yes, he did bail on his FOX commentating deal, but he bailed in a fashion that his contract allowed for. And no, Couture said, he didn't come right out and tell the UFC he had a deal on the table that would take him over to the other side, but that's because he was subject to a non-disclosure agreement.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.....oh but there's more:

According to what Couture told Gross, he and his attorney "gave [Zuffa] every opportunity we could to make them understand without disclosing what we couldn't disclose that things were heating up for me, and if they wanted to keep me it was going to take something significant. They passed."

Granted, that's Couture's version. It's likely to be as self-serving as White's, because that's what happens when you ask someone to tell you about how a business relationship went sour. It's not so different from when you ask someone to tell you about their recent breakup. The natural tendency is to minimize your own culpability.

So now he's just guessing at it? Just guessing that both sides are self-serving when all facts continue to point to Dana White's version being the truth?

Gee, I wonder why. Could it have been because, non-disclosure agreement or not, he didn't feel like having Dana go Dana on him over the phone? If you're essentially acknowledging that you called someone up so you could yell and swear at them, do you still get to act surprised when they don't pick up?

Face it, White is not the type who cordially agrees to "just be friends." He's the type who burns your photos and then slanders you to anyone who will listen

Like....really?? A journalist is going to say that after knowing the facts of what happened here? Oh and his other example of White's "breakups" with Spike being "the worst channel in the world"....again...for one, anyone who puts Manswers or 1000 ways to die on TV, isn't necessarily the greatest station on earth...but secondly, White said that far after the relationship had ended (after being quite cordial until Spike continued to blast the UFC). So the context makes the reader completely biased and say "oh my god I can't believe Dana White said that!" without knowing the actual scenario/context around it (http://www.mmaweekly.com/dana-white-spike-tv-is-the-worst-channel-in-the-history-of-the-world). It's just amateur writing and makes me question the validity of alot of these MMA journalists (except Ariel/John). Especially when 2 major MMA sites put "White says Anderson signs 10 fight deal", yet when you actually listen to the interview he says "He will sign a 10 fight deal"...and everyone goes nuts "OMG DANA LIED ABOUT THAT!". It really makes you wonder wtf is going on here when Dana White makes himself one of the most available guys in ALL of sports for the media and why they want to f--- him so much.

I think the article is more of an editorial, so I don't think anyone should get upset about Fowlkes having an opinion.

"One circle would be labeled, "People Who Are Bad, According to Dana White." Another circle would be labeled, "People Who Dana White Is No Longer in Business With." At the risk of running face-first into a drastic understatement, let's just say the overlap would be, uh, considerable."

LOL and all this time I thought Flound was Fowlkes unless this is some type of clever ruse.

I think Fowlkes is a good writer. But often times I find his pieces really off or melodramatic. At the same time, a lot of his articles are basically editorial columns. They aren't really "news" pieces. They are op ed pieces, so in that sense I think they are OK.

There are two sides to every story. I think in business it is hard to have true friends because its really about your business. Couture made a business decision for himself and his "brand." Apparently it was true that he and lawyer begged the UFC for a job and it sounds like they got him one as an analyst on Fox. It sounds like Couture wanted something bigger. Maybe he should've been more clear about it and said he wanted a larger role in the company or he ultimately wanted to go elsewhere and do other things.

I think what Fowlkes does ignore is that Couture himself does have some rather questionable business dealings in the past. There was an incident where Couture and Matt Lindland fought over a coach's fee when Evan Tanner won the world title. Every evidence I can find seems to indicate that Tanner didn't train with either guy for his fight. And neither guy was in his corner for that fight either. Now I'm not saying Couture is a bad guy, but it's a weird business thing that to me is pretty questionable. Basically, while Dana White is no choir boy, nor is Couture.

Look at Frank Shamrock. Look how critical he is of Dana White and the UFC and he acts like Bellator is the future. Bellator knows how to invest in the fighters in the sport (just like Strikeforce ) and is going to be the future of MMA. Yet look at all the evidence of Bellator mistreats fighters and threatens them with lawsuits or tries to keep them from leaving and going to the UFC. It's a joke to me that Bellator is talking about doing imminent PPV's. Is anyone really buying that nonsense?

Ben is a columnist. He has the right to offer his own point of view. I don't think he's done anything irresponsible here. To say that all Ben does is offer his own opinion is equivalent to complaining about a chef who cooks food. You may not like the meal but they have done their job. You can disagree with what he's saying fine but to fault him for giving his opinion is ridiculous. There is a reason why his articles greatly differ from the other staff writers. For what it's worth, I love ben's articles.

Ben is a columnist. He has the right to offer his own point of view. I don't think he's done anything irresponsible here. To say that all Ben does is offer his own opinion is equivalent to complaining about a chef who cooks food. You may not like the meal but they have done their job. You can disagree with what he's saying fine but to fault him for giving his opinion is ridiculous. There is a reason why his articles greatly differ from the other staff writers. For what it's worth, I love ben's articles.

I know I'm not faulting Ben for giving an opinion. Nor have I suggested he's necessarily being irresponsible. I am, however, criticizing the opinion itself and the way he framed it. (I also don't see anyone blasting him for giving an opinion. Just the opinion itself. Really, I think your charge is unfounded)

To me, it's that he appears to passing on his opinion off as being fair and impartial by giving both sides equal weight when I suspect one of the two is something other than they appear. It's all appearances with not enough focus on accuracy.

Edit; just as an FYI, I think Ben is a good writer and other than this recent article, he does a very good job. And let's face it, an article that generates buzz is what it's all about, provided it's not defamatory. He's succeeded with me in that regard....even if I don't agree with this one opinion piece.

Lol ben is one of the best writers in mixed martial arts journalism today, and he is actually one of my favourite MMA bloggers, his articles aren't the same old "dude 1 vs dude 2 at UFC ###" or "dude 1 says he'll destroy dude 2" He posts solely for the purpose of getting emotionally fueled responses, and he does a fairly good job at it, his articles are well written and smart too. Anyone who actually dislikes a Ben Fowlkes article must not like MMA, or they must be very close minded.

Lol ben is one of the best writers in mixed martial arts journalism today, and he is actually one of my favourite MMA bloggers, his articles aren't the same old "dude 1 vs dude 2 at UFC ###" or "dude 1 says he'll destroy dude 2" He posts solely for the purpose of getting emotionally fueled responses, and he does a fairly good job at it, his articles are well written and smart too. Anyone who actually dislikes a Ben Fowlkes article must not like MMA, or they must be very close minded.

Nope. That is a pretty immature statement actually (do I have to "train" to know MMA too?). I pointed out things I didn't like about the story (and other stories) and I don't like the way he writes. Doesn't make me close minded at all (I'm actually open to tons of opinions) and I'm a huge MMA fan. I am open-minded to the fact that White sometimes goes off and sometimes he can be wrong...but I've accepted him for doing that since that's just who he is. I don't need some writer to tell me (and glorify) how bad of a person he is for it (especially when he's in the right). It is a bias perspective and makes people, who aren't as open-minded as me, automatically make negative judgments/assumptions.

Sometimes I like Bens articles and sometimes I don't. It's not a secret that DW can be a right bitter bastard when things don't go his own way. Who really knows how bad Couture is really?,personally I wouldn't believe Dana when he's roided up at the moment(as revealed by him last week when he said he's acting a little crazy) Or wouldn't believe him when he's pissed about it. Would Dana reveal that to the media if Randy never signed with Zuffa?,I guess not somehow.

The article however is his POV, and is also attacking DW somewhat based on his own theories. I don't know what to believe tbh.

I like the way he writes, but his podcasts are way different . "the co-main event", I find him much less "professional" , using shitty vocabulary like they were sitting at a bar with two beers on the counter.

The article however is his POV, and is also attacking DW somewhat based on his own theories. I don't know what to believe tbh.

Exactly.....so is that a good writer or "the best writer in MMA journalism"? Doesn't that seem weird to anyone else? Its one thing to write a quip about someone (or both parties) in a story....but to actually blatantly show a biased opinion? I dunno seems weird to me, and I don't see it in other stories from good journalists like John/Ariel. It's like he's picking these negative spots that a casual/mainstream fan would just eat up (eg. title shot "controversy" and "kooky matchmaking"). There is no brilliance to that kind of writing to me which is why I generally don't read it. I'd read the tabloids for that kind of stuff.

Nope. That is a pretty immature statement actually (do I have to "train" to know MMA too?). I pointed out things I didn't like about the story (and other stories) and I don't like the way he writes. Doesn't make me close minded at all (I'm actually open to tons of opinions) and I'm a huge MMA fan. I am open-minded to the fact that White sometimes goes off and sometimes he can be wrong...but I've accepted him for doing that since that's just who he is. I don't need some writer to tell me (and glorify) how bad of a person he is for it (especially when he's in the right). It is a bias perspective and makes people, who aren't as open-minded as me, automatically make negative judgments/assumptions.

well, dana is a pretty terrible person but hes gotta be that way to be a successful businessman.